Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the

study of human sexuality

John D. DeLamater & Janet Shibley Hyde

To cite this article: John D. DeLamater & Janet Shibley Hyde (1998) Essentialism vs. social
constructionism in the study of human sexuality, Journal of Sex Research, 35:1, 10-18, DOI:
10.1080/00224499809551913

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551913

Published online: 11 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5616

View related articles

Citing articles: 111 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 35, No. 1, 1998 pp. 10-18

Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism

in the Study of Human Sexuality
John D. DeLamater
Janet Shibley Hyde
University of Wisconsin—Madison

According to classical essentialism, there are underlying true forms or essences, there is discontinuity between different
forms rather than continuous variation, and these true forms are constant over time. Modern essentialism consists of a
belief that certain phenomena are natural, inevitable, and biologically determined. We consider sociobiology, evolution-
ary psychology, genetic research, brain research, and endocrine research as examples of essentialist approaches, focus-
ing particularly on how these research approaches treat sexual orientation and sexual attraction. Social
constructionism, in contrast, rests on the belief that reality is socially constructed and emphasizes language as an im-
portant means by which we interpret experience. We briefly review social constructionist research on sexual orientation
and sexual attraction. Finally, we review examples of conjoint or interactionist research, uniting biological and social
influences. We conclude that, although there may be theories and research that conjoin biological and social influences,
there can be no true conjoining of essentialism and social constructionism.

A mong sex researchers today, few

debates are more intense than
the one between essentialism on the
nomena of the natural world were
simply a reflection of a finite number
of fixed and unchanging forms, or
defined by two doctrines. First, "the
best, the truly scientific theories, de-
scribe the 'essences' or the 'essential
one hand and social constructionism eide, as he called them. The eide natures' of things—the realities
on the other. Yet often these terms were renamed essences by the which lie behind the appearances."
remain undefined or ill defined. In Thomists of the Middle Ages. Con- Second, "the scientist can succeed in
this article we carefully specify these stancy and discontinuity were the finally establishing the truth of such
theoretical positions. We focus our crucial properties of essences. That theories beyond all reasonable
discussion on this debate in the so- is, an essence does not change and is doubt" (Popper, 1962, pp. 103-104).
cial and biological sciences; a paral- categorically different from another For Popper, theories are never more
lel debate exists in the humanities, essence. The essentialists attributed than hypotheses. They are conjec-
but it is beyond the scope of this ar- continuous variation to the imperfect ture rather than true knowledge.
ticle. To illustrate the particular con- manifestation of the essences. Essen- In the social sciences today, and
tent of the debate, we consider two tialism was the philosophical founda- specifically in sexology, essentialism
classic issues in sex research—sexu- tion for positivism in philosophy up seems to have become something of a
al attraction and sexual orienta- to the twentieth century. Essential- fuzzy category, a term that many use
tion—and how they have been ism therefore dominated philosophi- but few stop to define. We doubt that
addressed by essentialist and social cal and scientific thought in the those who use the term generally
constructionist researchers. Finally, Western world. We will refer to this have in mind Plato's notions of true,
we consider the possibility of a con- form of essentialism as classical es- underlying essences. Today, essen-
joint essentialist/social construction- entialism. tialism implies a belief that certain
ist approach in sex research. Ironically for the purposes of the phenomena are natural, inevitable,
current discussion, Darwin was one universal, and biologically deter-
Essentialism of the first to reject essentialism, at mined (Irvine, 1990). We will refer to
least partially. His reward was rejec- this form of essentialism as modern
Defining Essentialism tion of his work by the philosophers essentialism. The term is often used
The concept of essentialism origi- of the time. His notion of change
nated in the work of Plato (428-348 through evolution was fundamental-
B.C.) (Mayr, 1982). He argued that, ly at odds with the notion of con- We thank Lynn Nyhart, David Weis, and
stancy in essentialism. an anonymous reviewer for their helpful sug-
for example, a triangle, no matter gestions. Correspondence concerning this ar-
what the length of the sides or the Popper (1962) brought essential- ticle should be addressed to John D.
combination of angles, always had ism back into modern discourse on DeLamater, Ph.D., Department of Sociology,
the form of a triangle and thus was the philosophy of science, while at University of Wisconsin, 1180 Observatory
discontinuously different from a cir- the same time rejecting it soundly. Drive, Madison, WI 53706. Fax: 608-262-
cle or rectangle. For Plato, the phe- 8400. Phone: 608-262-4357. E-mail: DELA-
According to Popper, essentialism is [email protected].
10
 DeLamater and Hyde 11

loosely to refer to research and theory of the other gender and (b) preferen- According to Buss and Schmitt
presuming a biological basis—usual- tial choice by members of one gender (1993), men have an evolved prefer-
ly a biological determination—of sex- (usually females) for certain mem- ence for mates who are fertile, and
ual behavior, although as we will see bers of the other gender (Trivers, the best cues to fertility are physical
in a later section, there are also cul- 1972). attractiveness. Cues to physical at-
tural essentialist theories. Interest- David Buss articulated a more tractiveness include a clear skin, the
ingly, the term essentialism is complex evolutionary theory of sexu- absence of lesions, clear eyes, and lus-
generally used by those who are op- ality, sexual strategies theory (Buss trous hair. That is, women who are
posed to it, not by those who practice & Schmitt, 1993). This theory distin- unhealthy and probably have
it. In the sections that follow, we will guishes between short-term mating reduced fertility generally manifest
review theories and research that fit strategies (e.g., casual sex) and long- this in an unhealthy and unattractive
into this broad category, while at the term mating strategies (e.g., mar- appearance. Physically attractive
same time considering whether these riage). Men and women confront women are presumably healthier
theories and research also conform to some similar but also some different and, by inference, more fertile
some "essential" properties of classi- adaptive problems in short-term and (Symons, 1987). Youth is another cue
cal essentialism: (a) a belief in under- long-term mating strategies. to fertility and reproductive value,
lying true forms or essences; (b) a Space does not permit us to review and men, according to the theory, also
discontinuity between different forms thoroughly all the nuances of these have an evolved preference for young
rather than continuous variation; theories, nor the data that have been women, regardless of the man's age.
and (c) constancy, that is, the absence amassed in support of them (for re- Gangestad and Buss (1993) argued
of change over time. First, we review views, see Allgeier & Wiederman, that this mechanism can also explain
evolutionary theories and then a set 1994; Buss, 1994, 1997; Buss & cross-cultural variations in mating
of theories and research on proximal Schmitt, 1993). Rather, we will focus preferences. Specifically, in cultures
biological causes of sexual phenome- on two phenomena that have been where more parasites are present,
na. Finally, we consider the possibili- addressed extensively by both essen- healthiness and pathogen resistance
ty of cultural essentialism. tialist and social constructionist the- are even more important to assess in
Evolutionary Theories orists and therefore provide an ideal a mate than in cultures where there
opportunity for comparing the two are few parasites. Therefore, physical
Sociobiology has been defined as approaches. These two phenomena appearance should be more impor-
the application of evolutionary biolo- are sexual attraction and sexual ori- tant in selecting a mate in high-
gy to understanding the social be- entation. pathogen areas than in low-pathogen
havior of animals, including humans Attraction. Whom do we find areas, and the cross-cultural data
(Barash, 1977). This modern applica- supported that prediction. This pat-
attractive as a sexual partner; that
tion of evolutionary theory was tern was true for both men's and
is, what are our mate-selection pref-
inaugurated with the publication of women's mating preferences.
erences? According to evolutionary
E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New
Synthesis (1975). Donald Symons theorists, our mating preferences Women are generally more inter-
applied this approach to understand- are the result of evolutionary forces; ested in long-term than short-term
ing sexuality in his book, The Evolu- the preferences that evolved serve mating strategies (Buss & Schmitt,
tion of Human Sexuality (1979). the function of maximizing the indi- 1993). Short-term mating for
vidual's reproductive success or fit- women, however, may have some
Evolutionary theory refers to the ness, i.e., the number of one's genes
theory that all living things have ac- adaptive functions. Specifically, it
passed on successfully to succeeding can allow them to assess the merits
quired their present forms through generations through one's offspring.
gradual changes in their genetic en- of a man as a long-term mate.
As noted previously, evolutionary Women, according to the theory,
dowment over successive genera-
psychologists distinguish between want a long-term mate who is able
tions. These gradual changes take
short-term and long-term mating and willing to provide resources
place as a result of natural selection,
a process resulting in the survival of strategies; furthermore, they argue (money, food, etc.) that can be used
only those animals that are well that short-term mating strategies in the rearing of their offspring.
adapted to their environment. In constitute a larger component of Therefore, women value wealth,
addition to natural selection, Darwin men's sexual strategy than women's good financial prospects, and indus-
posited a second process, sexual (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Because triousness in a mate. Like men, they
selection, that produced sex differ- most psychological research has also value physical attractiveness as
ences. Sexual selection includes two been focused on attraction in short- an indicator of health and fertility,
processes: (a) members of one gender term relationships, we will concen- but this may be a lesser factor than
(usually males) competing with each trate here on the findings for the man's command of resources.
other for mating access to members short-term mating strategies.
12 Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism
In sum, then, physical attractive- Biological Theories Emphasizing there is an increased incidence of ho-
ness and youth should be key fea- Proximate Causes mosexual orientation in maternal
tures that attract men to women. Sociobiologists distinguish be- uncles, but not in fathers or paternal
Women are attracted to men who tween proximate and ultimate causes relatives. This research is controver-
can provide resources and, to a less- of behavior (e.g., Symons, 1987). sial, in part because of failures to
er extent, men who are healthy and Proximate causes, e.g., hormones, replicate the findings (Marshall,
attractive. have an immediate impact on behav- 1995), but nonetheless intriguing.
Sexual orientation. Sexual orien- ior. Ultimate causes deal with evolu- Brain factors. Another hypothesis
tation is a difficult issue for evolu- tion and the particular circumstances has been that there are neuro-
tionary theorists. On the surface, if of ancestral populations that led to anatomical differences between the
evolutionary forces are the key to the evolution of a particular trait or brains of gays and straights. Often
human sexuality, exclusive homo- tendency. In this section we shift the the attempt has been to link these
sexuality with no reproduction focus to another category of essential- differences to male-female brain dif-
should not exist, and even bisexuali- ist theories and research, biological ferences. Much research has focused
ty, with decreased heterosexual mat- influences that are proximate. on the hypothalamus and two clus-
ing and reproduction, should not be ters of cells (nuclei) in it: the sexual-
favored. Natural selection would Genetic influences on human sexu- ly dimorphic nucleus (SDN) and the
quickly weed out individuals and ality. There has been considerable interstitial nuclei of the anterior hy-
genes leading to these tendencies. theoretical and research interest in pothalamus (INAH-1, INAH-2, and
Indeed, sociobiologist Helen Fisher the genetics of one of our two key INAH-3) (Swaab, Gooren, & Hof-
opined, "I suspect that both hor- topics (sexual orientation) but not man, 1995). Much of this research
mones and environment have impor- the other (attraction). Bailey and has been conducted with animals,
tant effects on sexual preferences in Pillard (1991) studied 56 gay men and one might question the rele-
humankind and other animals" who had an identical twin brother. vance to humans.
(1992, p. 167), apparently implying They found that 52% of the co-twins
were also gay, i.e., there was a 52% Perhaps the best known study in-
that evolutionary selection was not vestigating the hypothesis of hypo-
an important force. concordance rate. There was a 22%
concordance rate for gay men with thalamic differences in humans is
Evolutionary theorists have used nonidentical twin brothers and an LeVay's (1991) research. He found
a more complex concept, inclusive 11% concordance rate for gay men that INAH3 was larger in heterosex-
fitness, in explaining the mainte- and their adoptive brothers. Bailey, ual women than heterosexual men
nance of same-gender sexual behav- Pillard, Neale, and Agyei (1993) and that INAH3 in homosexual men
ior in the face of evolutionary found a 48% concordance rate was similar in size to that of hetero-
pressures (Dickemann, 1995; Wein- among lesbians with identical twin sexual women (no lesbians were in-
rich, 1995). Much evolutionary theo- sisters, compared with a 16% concor- cluded in the study). The study can
rizing has been focused on dance rate for nonidentical twin be criticized on a number of grounds:
individual fitness, i.e., the passing of pairs and 6% for adoptive sister (a) The sample size was very small;
one's genes to later generations pairs. (See Whitam, Diamond, & only 19 gay men, 16 straight men,
through one's children. Inclusive fit- Martin, 1993, for similar results.) and 6 straight women were included.
ness, in contrast, refers to the repro- (b) All gay men in the sample, but
ductive success of oneself and one's These studies seem to provide ev-
idence of a genetic influence on sex- only six straight men and one
close relatives, i.e., the total of one's straight woman, had died of AIDS.
genes passed to the next generation ual orientation in both men and
women. They do not, however, pro- (c) The gay men were known to have
through one's children, but also been gay based on records at the
through one's siblings' children (who vide evidence of complete genetic de-
termination, which would require a time of death; the others, however,
are also carrying some of one's were just "presumed" to be hetero-
genes) and other relatives' children. concordance rate of 100% for identi-
cal twins. sexual. Therefore, this study cannot
The notion, then, is that gay men be regarded as conclusive.
and lesbians might contribute to the Moving to the micro level of
analysis, Dean Hamer and his col- Hormones. For decades research-
fitness of their siblings, nieces, and ers have speculated that some kind
nephews, perhaps by helping in leagues reported that they have
identified a particular gene on the X of hormone imbalance was responsi-
their rearing or contributing materi- ble for homosexuality. Perhaps, the
al resources, thereby maximizing chromosome, named Xq28, that ex-
plains some cases of male homosexu- reasoning went, gay men are low on
their own inclusive fitness and the testosterone and lesbians are low on
continued evolution of same-gender ality (Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, &
Pattatucci, 1993). Transmission is estrogen or perhaps high on testos-
sexual orientations. terone. Recent studies fail to show
therefore from mothers to sons, and
any differences in testosterone levels
 DeLamater and Hyde 13

between male homosexuals and male dence or nature of homosexuality tion of women's different moral
heterosexuals (Banks & Gartrell, may have changed over the cen- voice, with an emphasis on caring
1995; Gooren, Fliers, & Courtney, turies. Ironically, the evolutionary and relationships, on Chodorow's
1990). Fewer studies of hormonal dif- theories should follow the lead of theorizing. Belenky, Clinchy, Gold-
ferences between lesbians and hetero- Darwin and incorporate changes in berg, and Tarule's (1986) belief in
sexual women have been conducted. patterns of adaptation and selection "women's ways of knowing" repre-
These studies showed no differences for homosexuality over many gener- sents yet another derivative of these
between the two groups in testos- ations. As experts noted, however, ideas.
terone levels (Banks & Gartrell, 1995; sociobiology typically rests on an These theories all argue for cul-
Dancey, 1990; Downey, Ehrhardt, outmoded version of evolutionary tural determinism of essential quali-
Schiffman, Dyrenfurth, & Becker, theory that modern biologists con- ties in females and males, resulting
1987). sider naive (Gould, 1987). Thus, the from universal experiences in infan-
There has also been speculation very capacity for change over time cy and early childhood—namely, the
that there might be differences be- (and with environmental conditions) early intense bond between mother
tween heterosexuals and homosexu- that is so important in evolutionary and infant and the father's relative
als in other hormones such as the theory has generally been ignored by absence from these early relation-
gonadotropins FSH and LH. Five of modern sociobiologists and evolu- ships. These theories have been crit-
seven studies on LH levels in gay men tionary psychologists. icized for presuming universality
compared with straight men showed and ignoring diversity in human ex-
no differences, and two showed higher Cultural Essentialism perience (e.g., Lorber & Farrell,
LH levels in gay men (Banks & Although essentialism generally 1991).
Gartrell, 1995), so there is not strong refers to views that are biologically
support for differences in LH levels. deterministic, within gender studies Summary: Essentialism
there is also a cultural essentialist We have considered three distinct
Are the Biological Theories viewpoint. Indeed, one text defined schools of thought on essentialism:
Essentialist? essentialism as "the point of view Plato's classical essentialism, mod-
As noted earlier, classical essen- that women and men do differ be- ern essentialism characterized by bi-
tialism rests on three assumptions: cause of socialization and that ological determinism, and cultural
(a) a belief in underlying true forms women are at least equal to and pos- essentialism. All have in common an
or essences; (b) a discontinuity be- sibly superior to men" (Rollins, 1996, assumption that phenomena—in
tween different forms; and (c) con- p. 8). This definition is not suffi- particular, sexual phenomena such
stancy, that is, the absence of change ciently precise for our purposes, but as sexual orientation or gender—re-
over time. Here we consider whether it illustrates the existence of the cul- side within the individual (Bohan,
the biological theories just reviewed tural essentialist point of view. 1993), in the form of hormones, per-
rest on these assumptions. The issue A group of theorists, known as sonality traits, and so on. This view
of sexual orientation provides the cultural feminists, have propounded is in sharp contrast to social con-
clearest issue for analysis. the view that, because of universal structionism, whose proponents
All the biological theories—evolu- early childhood experiences, women view these phenomena as external to
tionary, genetic, hormonal, and neu- are inherently relational, whereas the individual, defined by social un-
roanatomical—are based on the men are autonomous and indepen- derstandings and discourse.
assumption, although it is rarely dent. Chodorow (1978) articulated
stated, that there are two underly- the theoretical basis for these views, Social Constructionism
ing true forms, heterosexuals and arguing that the initial close and in-
homosexuals. Despite Kinsey's pio- tense bond between mother and in- Defining Social Constructionism
neering conceptualization of a con- fant must be smashed by the male in The term social constructionism
tinuum between heterosexuality and order to form a separate, indepen- has broad currency in the social sci-
homosexuality, the theories rest on dent, masculine identity, whereas ences. It is often used loosely to refer
an assumption of discontinuity, i.e., the female can continue in close re- to any social influence on individual
that homosexuality and heterosexu- latedness to her mother, who pro- experience. However, it is more ap-
ality are two distinct and separate vides her with a feminine identity. propriately used to refer to a specific
categories. In addition, these theo- These qualities of separateness in theoretical paradigm. The funda-
ries rest on an assumption of the men and relatedness in women per- mental assumption of this paradigm
constancy over time of the two cate- sist throughout life and are a result is that "reality is socially construct-
gories of homosexuality and hetero- of universal cultural experience. ed" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966,
sexuality. None of the theories They are regarded as essential qual- p. 1). This paradigm has its roots in
include the possibility that the inci- ities. Gilligan (1982) based her no-
14 Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism
the philosophy of human experience, ality is a product of social interaction flect the agent's membership of
in the writings of Mannheim and (Gergen, 1985). his/her cultural community" (p. 39).
Schutz. In the social sciences, it Fourth, shared typifications of re-
draws on the work of Mead and Par- ality become institutionalized. The Social Construction of
sons. The most systematic presenta- Shared typifications of people and Sexuality
tion of the paradigm is found in events lead to habitualization: Berger and Luckmann (1966) ac-
Berger and Luckmann's book, The "While in theory there may be a hun- knowledged that sexuality is
Social Construction of Reality dred ways to go about the project of "grounded in biological drives" (p.
(1966). First, we present the con- building a canoe out of matchsticks, 181) and that these drives provide a
structionist paradigm, then describe habitualization narrows these down generalized motivation. But biology
its use to the study of human sexu- to one" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, does not dictate where, when, and
ality, and finally review its applica- p. 53). Habitualization makes the with what object a person engages in
tion to attraction and sexual behavior of others predictable, facili- sexual behavior; "sexuality . . . [is]
orientation. tating joint activity (Mead, 1934). channeled in specific directions so-
Once a typification or practice be- cially rather than biologically, a
The Constructionist Paradigm comes habitual, others come to ex- channeling that not only imposes
This presentation draws heavily pect it, and mechanisms of social limits on these activities, but direct-
control are developed to perpetuate ly affects organismic functions"
on Berger and Luckmann's treatise. it. Of particular significance are in- (p. 181).
The discussion is organized around stitutionalized roles, reciprocal typi-
five statements; we have extracted Gagnon and Simon's book, Sexual
fications of conduct by types of actors Conduct (1973), presented a theory
them from a far more lengthy and in- in specific contexts.
tegrated discourse. of sexuality that is fundamentally
First, our experience of the world Fifth, knowledge may be institu- social constructionist. They rejected
is ordered. We do not perceive a tionalized at the level of society, or an essentialist view, arguing that
chaotic jumble of sights, sounds, within subgroups. A subuniverse of "sexuality is not . . . [a] universal
smells, and touches. We perceive the meaning is a socially segregated phenomenon which is the same in all
world as comprised of discrete store of knowledge "carried" by a historical times and cultural spaces"
events and specific persons engaging specific group. There may be conflict (Gagnon, 1990, p. 3). Sexuality is
in distinct actions in a particular between such groups. created by culture, by the defining of
order. We experience the world as an Our discussion to this point has some behaviors and some relation-
emphasized experience of the world ships as "sexual," and the learning of
objective reality, as consisting of these definitions or scripts by mem-
events and persons that exist inde- external to the individual. What
about the experience of internal sen- bers of the society.
pendently of our perception of them.
Second, language provides the sations? The same theory applies. Laws and Schwartz (1977) ap-
basis on which we make sense of the Language provides us with the cate- plied the constructionist paradigm
world. Language provides us with gories that we use to interpret or to female sexuality in the contempo-
the categories, or typifications, that make meaningful internal phenome- rary United States. With regard to
na. There are strong and weak phenomena such as birth, sexual
we use to classify events and persons versions of constructionism in appli-
and to order them. Language pro- anatomy, menarche, sexual initia-
cations to internal sensation, such as tion, impotence, and frigidity, "the
vides the means by which we inter- emotion (Armon-Jones, 1986). The primary significance of these biologi-
pret new experience. Language or strong version asserts that all expe- cal events is not that they occur, but
discourse is "prior to and constitu- rience is a sociocultural product: "No that they are marked by others.
tive of the world" (Miller, in press, emotion can be a natural state, . . . They have social significance; terms
p. 32). [or] regarded as cultural modifica- exist to refer to them, and communi-
Third, the reality of everyday life tions of natural states" (p. 37). The cation occurs about them" (p. 22). We
is shared. Other persons perceive re- weak version "concedes to the natu- note the emphasis on language and
ality in much the same way, as con- ralist the existence of a limited communication as the source of sig-
sisting of similar events, persons, range of natural emotional respons- nificance or meaning of biological
actions, and order. This shared, or es" (p. 38). However, "the naturalist's phenomena.
intersubjective, character distin- account is of limited scope since the Foucault (1978) systematically
guishes the reality of everyday life salient aspects of an agent's emo- applied a social constructionist para-
from idiosyncratic realities, such as tional responses form part of a men- digm to human sexuality. He argued
our dreams. Language enables us to tal life, the interests, goals and that sexuality is not an essence. It is
share experience, to make our expe- general attitudes of which largely re- not a biological quality or natural
rience available to others. Thus, re- inner drive whose character is the
 DeLamater and Hyde 15

same across time and space. It is a preferences for an expressive (affec- the construction of homosexual be-
cultural construct. Its meaning is de- tionate, compassionate) partner, havior, (p. 331)
rived from language or discourse; characteristics that are related to re- In fact, there is tremendous vari-
each institution in society has a dis- lationship satisfaction and relation- ability within a single culture in sex-
course about sex, a way of thinking ship survival, traits that have no ual behavior and lifestyles. One can
and talking about the broad array of direct relationship to fertility. compare samples of gay and hetero-
behaviors and actors who are in- Evolutionary psychologists argue sexual men on quantitative mea-
volved in sexual expression. Similar- that certainty of paternity is a major sures such as number of sexual
ly, Gagnon (1990) argued that each concern of men. This leads to prefer- partners and find significant mean
institution in society has an "in- ence for virgins in a long-term mat- differences. Such gross comparisons
structional system" about sexuality. ing strategy (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). encourage us to ignore or overlook
Attraction. According to social Again, data deriving from social con- the celibate and faithful gay men and
construction theorists, our mating structionist research call this view the extremely promiscuous married
preferences are the result of social- into question. Schlegel (1995) con- heterosexual men. Such complexity
ization, of learning the universe of cluded, based on a survey of the an- is inconsistent with sociobiological
meaning of our (sub)culture with re- thropological literature, that the and evolutionary models (Fausto-
gard to mate selection. Sociocultural value placed on female virginity at Sterling, 1986).
standards of desirability will reflect marriage is related to the giving of Furthermore, as noted earlier,
cultural values, the economic and so- property at the marriage by the proponents of biological theories of
cial structure, and the characteristic bride's family. She argued that in orientation assume constancy over
division of household labor in that such societies the bride's family is (historical) time. They also assume
culture. Some characteristics appear "buying" a son-in-law to maintain or constancy over the life of the individ-
to be universally preferred, such as enhance the family's social status. ual. One is heterosexual or homosex-
physical attractiveness, education, Thus, the bride's family, not the ual for life. There are societies in
and intelligence. Other characteris- groom and his family, place great which sexual orientation seems fixed
tics, such as age and virginity, are value on female virginity. and is associated with institutional-
much more important in some soci-
Sexual orientation. The biological ized roles that one occupies across
eties than in others (Hatfield & Rap-
son, 1996). theories of sexual orientation dis- the life span. There are other soci-
cussed earlier all include the assump- eties, however, in which the bound-
Essentialists have emphasized tion that there are two distinct types aries between sexual orientations are
the universal preferences. Social of people, heterosexual and homosex- fluid, and persons move back and
constructionists argue that, al- ual, and that each person is one or the forth during the course of their lives.
though a preference for an attractive other. If a preference for partners of One notable case is the Sambia, as
mate may be universal, there are no the same gender is genetic, or due to reported by Herdt (1984). In this cul-
universal standards of attractive- ture, male youth are initiated into a
differences in hormone levels or brain
ness (Fausto-Sterling, 1986). In one stage of exclusively homosexual be-
anatomy, one would expect at least
society, men may consider a heavy havior. Following marriage, there is
some similarities in gays or lesbians
woman sexually attractive, whereas a period during which they have sex-
(not to mention heterosexual men and
in other societies, men may be sexu- ual contact with men/youth and their
ally aroused by the sight of a thin women) across cultures. Social con-
structionists, on the other hand, ex- wives. Following the birth of chil-
woman.
pect substantial variation across dren, they become exclusively hetero-
Evolutionary theorists explain cultures in the behaviors associated sexual. The Sambia have no concept
mate-selection preferences as serv- of homosexuality as a lifelong trait or
with homosexuality and heterosexu-
ing reproductive purposes, maximiz- lifestyle.
ality. Blackwood (1993) concluded,
ing the likelihood that a man or
based on a review of the anthropolog-
woman will select a fertile partner. A The Social Construction of Gender
ical literature, that homosexuality
study by Howard, Blumstein, and
varies greatly from one society to an- One of the topics of greatest inter-
Schwartz (1987) challenges this
other: est to social constructionists has
view. Howard and colleagues studied
been gender and its social construc-
the preferences of both partners in Patterns of homosexual behavior tion (e.g., Bohan, 1993; Lorber &
heterosexual (n = 4,314), male homo- reflect the value systems and so-
cial structure of the different soci- Farrell, 1991; Unger, 1989). A com-
sexual (n = 969), and lesbian (n =
eties in which they are found. The mon misunderstanding is that the
788) couples. Although some results
ideology regarding male and fe- social construction of gender means
were consistent with the evolution- male roles, kinship and marriage that gender-typed attributes are
ary perspective, others were not. regulations, and the sexual divi- simply the result of socialization
Most respondents reported strong sion of labor are all important in
16 Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism

(Bohan, 1993). The social construc- social constructionists argue that behavior varies greatly from one cul-
tionist position, however, as articu- there are no true essences, but ture to another. In White Anglo-
lated earlier in this article, is rather that reality is socially con- American culture, two men who
considerably more complex than structed, and therefore that phe- engage in anal intercourse would be
that. Social constructionists see gen- nomena such as homosexuality are considered homosexual. In Mexican
der not as a trait of the individual— social constructions, the product of a culture, the man who takes the active
as essentialists do—but rather as a particular culture, its language, and role is labeled masculine and is not
process external to the individual. institutions. stigmatized; the man who takes the
Gender is defined by interactions be- In regard to attraction, essentialist receptive role is considered homosex-
tween people, by language, and by researchers (particularly evolution- ual (Magana & Carrier, 1991).
the discourse of a culture. ary theorists) look for cross-cultural A limitation of one version of con-
universals in patterns of attraction. structionist thought is that it as-
Summary: Social Constructionism They see these universal patterns— signs a passive role to the individual.
Social constructionist analyses such as a preference for physically With its emphasis on primary social-
have several strengths (Miller, in attractive persons, signaling healthi- ization and the learning of language
press). First, the central role given ness—as the product of evolution and by new members, it leaves little
language provides a concrete mecha- as having the function of maximizing room for individual initiative and
nism by which culture influences in- the individual's fitness. Social con- creativity. The result is what Wrong
dividual thought and behavior. In so structionists focus not on the univer- (1961) characterized as an overso-
doing, several writers follow the lead sal preference for an attractive mate, cialized conception of the person;
of George Herbert Mead (1934). Sec- but on cultural variations in what is ironically, he criticized such concep-
ond, social constructionism can rep- considered attractive, such as the tions for their failure to recognize
resent the complexity within a single preference, a century ago, for women the impact of biology on thought and
culture; it does not assume uniformi- with voluptuous bodies such as those behavior. The relegation of the indi-
ty. Third, it is consistent with varia- sculpted by Rubens, which contrasts vidual to a passive role may be less
tion across societies and over time. sharply with the preference today for true of Berger and Luckmann's
lean or athletic bodies for women. In (1966) formulation. Another weak-
Conclusion the sections that follow, we review ness is the limited explanatory and
In this article we defined the basic criticisms of essentialism and social predictive power of constructionist
features of essentialism and social constructionism and then consider theories, given their emphasis on
constructionism and then examined the possibility of a conjoint approach variability.
their applications to two topics in that integrates both essentialism and
sex research, sexual orientation and social constructionism. Conjoint Approaches
attraction. Essentialist approaches Typically, attempts to synthesize
to research on sexual orientation— Criticisms of Essentialism and biological influences and social influ-
whether they be evolutionary ap- Social Constructionism ences in a single theory are termed
proaches or approaches that rely on Two basic assumptions of evolu- interactionist theories, despite the
hormones, genetics, or brain fac- tionary psychology have been heavily fact that these theories rarely speci-
tors—rest on assumptions that (a) criticized. The first is the assumption fy a true interaction between the two
there are underlying true essences of constancy across time in mating sets of influences, but rather specify
(homosexuality and heterosexuali- preferences and practices. Several additive influences. For this reason,
ty), (b) there is a discontinuity be- analyses have documented the we avoid the term interactionist ap-
tween forms (homosexuality and changes that have occurred histori- proaches here and refer to these ap-
heterosexuality are two distinct, sep- cally in mate selection, marriage, proaches simply as conjoint, meaning
arate categories, rather than points and the expression of sexuality a theoretical and an empirical joining
on a continuum), and (c) there is con- outside marriage (Aries, 1993; of the essentialist and social con-
stancy of these true essences over Foucault, 1978). structionist approaches. Here we
time and across cultures (homosexu- The assumption of discontinuity of consider two examples of such con-
ality and heterosexuality have the forms has also been challenged. Crit- joint approaches.
same form today in American cul- ics point to the variation both across Berscheid and Walster's (1974)
ture as they have had for centuries cultures and within a single culture two-component theory of love and at-
and as they have in other cultures in the form that a single phenomenon traction is one example. According to
today). Modern essentialism is usu- takes. Homosexuality encompasses the theory, passionate love occurs
ally equated with biological deter- several différent lifestyles in the con- when two conditions exist simultane-
minism, although a strain of cultural temporary United States. At the ously: (a) The person is in a state of
essentialism also exists. In contrast, same time, the meaning of a single intense physiological arousal and (b)
 DeLamater and Hyde 17

the situation is such that the person al factors as influences on sexuality. link. Journal of Homosexuality, 28, 247-
applies a particular cognitive label— But, as we noted earlier, biological 268.
Barash, D. P. (1977). Sociobiology and behav-
"love"—to the sensations being ex- influence cannot be simply equated ior. New York: Elsevier.
perienced. A number of researchers with essentialism, nor can social in- Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger,
have provided evidence consistent fluence be equated with social con- N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's
with this theory (e.g., White, Fish- structionism. In our view, the basic ways of knowing: The development of self,
bein, & Rutstein, 1981). Is the theory definitions of essentialism and social voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
an example of a conjoining of essen- constructionism may well prohibit ef- Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social
construction of reality: A treatise in the so-
tialism and social constructionism? forts to frame conjoint theories. Es- ciology of knowledge. Garden City, NY:
Part (a) is certainly a biological com- sentialism relies on a notion of true Doubleday.
ponent, but does it rest on essential- essences, with an implication (found Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). A little bit
ist notions? Perhaps it does, if one in positivism) that we can know about love. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Founda-
considers it to be based on an under- these true essences directly and ob- tions of interpersonal attraction (pp. 355-
381). New York: Academic Press.
lying assumption that there is a true jectively. Social constructionists Blackwood, E. (1993). Breaking the mirror:
essence of sex drive or arousal and argue the opposite, that we cannot The construction of lesbianism and the an-
that it must be activated for the ex- know anything about true essences thropological discourse on homosexuality.
perience of passionate love to occur. or reality directly, but rather that hu- In D. N. Suggs & A. W. Miracle (Eds.), Cul-
Part (b) is clearly social construction- mans always engage in socially con- ture and human sexuality (pp. 328-340).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
ist. Given a certain internal state of structing reality. There is no happy
Bohan, J. S. (1993). Regarding gender: Essen-
physiological arousal, love is socially detente between these approaches. tialism, constructionism, and feminist psy-
constructed, based on the situation Similarly, the essentialist emphasis chology. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
(presence of an attractive member of on separate and distinct categories or 17, 5-21.
the other gender) and other factors. essences is at odds with the social Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire:
Other labels, such as fear or anger, constructionist view of the startling Strategies of human mating. New York:
Basic Books.
might have been given to this inter- diversity of human sexual expression Buss, D. M. (1997). Sexual strategies theory:
nal state if the situation were differ- across time and culture, and even Historical origins and current status. The
ent. within the individual. Therefore, al- Journal of Sex Research 35, 19-31.
though one may frame interactionist Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual
As a second example, the anthro- strategies theory: An evolutionary per-
or conjoint theories of biological and
pologist Donald Tuzin (1995) advo- spective on human mating. Psychological
cultural influence, it seems to us un-
cated a biocultural approach to Review, 100, 204-232.
likely that there can be a true con- Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of
understanding sexuality. According
joining of essentialist and social mothering. Berkeley: University of Califor-
to his analysis, sexual desire is an
constructionist approaches. nia Press.
essential product of evolution. Sexu- Dancey, C. P. (1990). Sexual orientation in
al desire is such a strong force that, women: An investigation of hormonal and
as he pointed out, people have risked References personality variables. Biological Psychia-
life, tranquility, family, and reputa- Allgeier, E. R., & Weiderman, M. W. (1994). try, 30, 251-264.
tion in their quest to express sexual How useful is evolutionary psychology for Dickemann, M. (1995). Wilson's Panchreston:
understanding contemporary human sexu- The inclusive fitness hypothesis of sociobi-
desire. But the expression of sexual al behavior? Annual Review of Sex Re- ology re-examined. Journal of Homosexu-
desire is channeled and constrained search, 5, 218-256. ality, 28, 147-183.
by memories, situational factors, Aries, P. (1993). Thoughts on the history of ho- Downey, J., Ehrhardt, A. A., Schiffman, M.,
and cultural understandings, which mosexuality. In D. N. Suggs & A. \V. Mira- Dyrenfurth, I., & Becker, J. (1987). Sex
tell us who the appropriate partners cle (Eds.), Culture and human sexuality hormones in lesbian and heterosexual
are, which partners may be danger- (pp. 356-366). Pacific Grove, CA: women. Hormones and Behavior, 21, 347-
Brooks/Cole. 357.
ous, and so on. Thus, although sexu- Armon-Jones, C. (1986). The thesis of con- Fausto-Sterling, A. (1986). Myths of gender.
al desire may be biologically driven, structionism. In R. Harre (Ed.), The social New York: Basic Books.
its expression is socially constructed. construction of emotions (pp. 32-56). Ox- Fisher, H. (1992). Anatomy of love: The mys-
Here again we seem to see a joining ford, England: Blackwell. teries of mating, marriage, and why we
of an essentialist view of sexual de- Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genet- stray. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
sire with a social constructionist ic study of male sexual orientation. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality,
Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089- Vol. 1, An introduction. New York: Pan-
view of the way it is expressed. 1096. theon.
Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., & Gagnon, J. H. (1990) The explicit and implicit
Can There Be True Conjoint Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influ- use of the scripting perspective in sex re-
Theories? ence sexual orientation in women. search. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1,
Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217- 1-43.
These two examples surely repre- 223. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual
sent conjoint theories that rely on a Banks, A., & Gartrell, N. K. (1995). Hormones conduct. Chicago: Aldine.
combination of biological and cultur- and sexual orientation: A questionable
18 Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism
Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalam- Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human
Pathogen prevalence and human mate ic structure between heterosexual and ho- sexuality. New York: Oxford University
preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, mosexual men. Science, 253, 1034-1037. Press.
14, 89-96. Lorber, J., & Farrell, S. A. (1991). The social Symons, D. (1987). An evolutionary approach:
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social construction- construction of gender. Newbury Park, CA: Can Darwin's view of life shed light on
ist movement in modern psychology. Amer- Sage. human sexuality? In J. H. Geer & W. T.
ican Psychologist, 40, 266-275. Magana, J. R., & Carrier, J. M. (1991). Mexi- O'Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sex-
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: can and Mexican American male sexual uality (pp. 91-126). New York: Plenum.
Psychological theory and women's develop- behavior and spread of AIDS in California. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and
ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universi- The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 425-441. sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sex-
ty Press. Marshall, E. (1995). NIH's "gay gene" study ual selection and the descent of man: 1871-
Gooren, L., Fliers, E., & Courtney, K. (1990). questioned. Science, 268, 1841. 1971 (pp. 136-179). New York: Aldine.
Biological determinants of sexual behav- Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological Tuzin, D. (1995). Discourse, intercourse, and
ior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 175- thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheri- the excluded middle: Anthropology and the
196. tance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universi- problem of sexual experience. In P. R.
Gould, S. J. (1987). An urchin in the storm. ty Press. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexu-
New York: Norton. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. al nature, sexual culture (pp. 257-275).
Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
N., & Pattatucci, A. M. L. (1993). A linkage Miller, J. (in press). Theoretical issues in cul- Unger, R. K. (1989). Representations: Social
between DNA markers and the X chromo- tural psychology and social construction- constructions of gender. Amityville, NY:
some and male sexual orientation. Science, ism. In J. W. Berry, Y. Poortinga, & Baywood.
261, 321-327. J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cul- Weinrich, J. D. (1995). Biological research on
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1996). Love and tural psychology, Vol. 1 (rev. ed.). Boston: sexual orientation: A critique of the critics.
sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Needham Allyn and Bacon. Journal of Homosexuality, 28, 197-213.
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refuta- Whitam, F. L., Diamond, M., & Martin, J.
Herdt, G. (1984). Ritualized homosexuality in tions: The growth of scientific knowledge. (1993). Homosexual orientation in twins.
Melanesia. Berkeley: University of New York: Basic Books. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 187-206.
California Press. Rollins, J. H. (1996). Women's minds, women's White, G. L., Fishbein, S., & Rutstein, J.
Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. bodies: The psychology of women in a (1981). Passionate love and the misattri-
(1987). Social or evolutionary theories? biosocial context. Upper Saddle River, NJ: bution of arousal. Journal of Personality
Some observations on preferences in Prentice Hall. and Social Psychology, 41, 56-62.
human mate selection. Journal of Person- Schlegel, A. (1995). The cultural management Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new
ality and Social Psychology, 53, 194-200. of adolescent sexuality. In P. R. Abramson synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
Irvine, J. M. (1990). Disorders of desire: Sex & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, versity Press.
and gender in modern American sexology. sexual culture (pp. 177-194). Chicago: Uni- Wrong, D. (1961). The oversocialized concep-
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. versity of Chicago Press. tion of man in modern sociology. American
Laws, J. L., & Schwartz, P. (1977). Sexual Swaab, D. F., Gooren, L. J. G., & Hofman, Sociological Review, 26, 183-193.
scripts: The social construction of female M. A. (1995). Brain research, gender, and
sexuality. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden. sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexu- Manuscript accepted March 24, 1997
ality, 28, 283-301.